Thank
you, Jay, and good evening, everyone. It is great to be here  in this
place, where clear thinking so often emerges from collectives of great
minds.

In
that spirit I wanted to give us something to collectively
deliberate

Last year, I
shared HPs view of an emerging digital Renaissance. I talked about
using the technology thats at our disposal to empower individual
entrepreneurs, consumers, and inventors. I shared a view of fueling
and inspiring and connecting the everyday acts of many--and in the
process, making the benefits of technology accessible to all.

I hypothesized
last year, and I still believe today, that we are entering a second
and extraordinarily powerful renaissance. A renaissance that even has
the capacity and promise to eclipse the achievements of the Italian
renaissance. One that has the capability not only to drive sustained
economic prosperitybut social progress here in the United States, and
beyond our shores as well.

Let me continue
last years conversation where we left off

I
start tonights discussion by posing a question:
What brought the first renaissance to an end?

In
light of the global economic slowdown, I ask this question because I think
the answer has much to teach us.

Of course, many
factors caused the cessation of the renaissance some economic some
political some based on the failure of leadership. But if I were to
distill it to the deepest root cause, it was Fear.

The
events that forced the close of the Renaissance era were caused by fear:
Fear of the openness created by the birth of humanistic values. Fear of
the discoveries and customs and peoples found beyond known
borders. Fear of the huge ethical questions raised by the times. Leaders
were unable to manage the conflicting forces. And it was ultimately Fear
that sent mankind into retreat, back to parochial thinking.

As a collective, mankind decided that rather than go forwardit would
settle for standing still, or going backward.

As
we all know, this kind of Fear results from the inability to choose from
the inability to reconcile competing world views.

I
draw on this parallel, this fact of human nature some 500 years hence
because we are at an equally critical crossroad in time.

And
not just because the euphoria of the first wave of Internet has been
quelled

Or
because the dot-com economy has lost its footing

Or
because the economic flu thats making its way around the world greatly
clouds our ability to predict let alone capitalize on the future.

I
draw on this parallel, this fact of human nature, because, on so many of
issues, we now have a decision to make:

-To
settle for standing still (or worse, retreating)

-OR,
to go forward boldly.

Today, from where
I stand, I must admit that the indications suggest perhaps that we are
retreating.

Look
at the imbalances between the developed world and the developing
world While
there is evidence that global business and global markets can increase
overall wealth in developing countries around the world there is
the voice heard in Seattle and Prague and Genoa that
declares global companies have not delivered
on the mandate. We have not created a sustainable model of economics
that will lift billions on the planet out of poverty. As CEO of a
company that does business in 163 countries, I am a firm advocate of
the responsibility global companies have and my post has also
given me a unique view on where I believe traditional models have
fallen short.

It
is clear: If we fail to develop a sustainable model of development
that fully acknowledges the talents and ideas and ambitions of the
four billion people on the planet who have no access to Net
technology, we will have failed. Thats because in this global
economy, were moving from just the trade of goods, or
components, or material goods to an economy that is based
on the trade of good thinking, talent, ideas, and know-how. You
see this in China you see it in India you see it in parts of
the developing world. If we do not get the balance rightthe
balance between what is local and what is global, between what is
economic benefit and what is societal benefit, between what is
held sacred and what is invented anewif we do not get the
balance right, we do not gain access to the thinking, talent,
ideas, and know-how of all the worlds people.

Look
at education
This countrythe patron nation of the digital Renaissancestill
has a hard time educating its students to compete on a world stage.
This country still has a hard time teaching its children to find Peru
on a world map. This country, the protector of global democracy, still
has a hard time imparting the identities and duties of its government
officials below the level of President. This country with perhaps
the most ambitious, and greatest commitment to education for all has
yet to deliver the quality of education that it aspires to.

Look
at the state of business in the harsh light of the economy
The great icons of American business are under extraordinary pressure.
Theres anti-globalization pressure. New competitors. Even the most
modern practices seem antiquated in a world that demands an agility,
an adaptability, a capacity to reinvent organizations at an
intense pace to take advantage of fundamental shifts in the
market. The call for fundamental rethinking and reinvention of our
organizations has never been louder. And despite all this, the
technology industry the industry that serves as the agent of change
for all other industries is mired in what some are characterizing as
a depression.

Look
at the telecom industry specifically The
telecom industry finds itself in worse shape today than it was before
the Telecommunications Act of 1996.And while there is reason to be concerned about the tenuous ground
beneath some of major telecom giants, the bigger concern is about the
far deeper ripple-effect they have on the overall health of the
economy. As is the focus on much of this summit, we are at a critical
juncture with the key issues that will affect the health of this
industry, and all our industries, going forward.

At this very
moment in time, like humankind 500 years ago, we can either choose to move
forwardor settle for retreating backward.

Let
me elaborate

The
other evening, I attended an event in celebration of the 20th
anniversary of the IBM PC. And as part of that event, as is usually the
case with such gatherings, there was a squadron of journalists. One young
journalist asked me the question: "Who is your most
influential business author?

And I looked down
at his pad of paper across the responses that he had scribbled down
from the other CEOs he had already talked with that night and as you
might expect, I saw Tom Peters and Peter Drucker, Gary Hamel and
Michael Porters name down there.

I paused.

And then I said,
Hegel. To which the reporter shot me a quizzical look. (Evidently
Hegel has fallen of the New York
Times business-book list.)

I expounded, Hegel you know, the
process of

-Thesis

-Antithesis

-Synthesis

I use it every day.

He dutifully
scribbled down Hegel and moved on.

The Hegelian
dialectic is about one point of view pitted against its countervailing
opposite. And from that contradiction and conflict arises a true synthesis
that unifies these different views into a cohesive, and often unexpected,
understanding.

It demands
holistic thinking. It demands a clear definition of the problemand then
a vision of the desired end-state. And it requires finding connections
between polar opposites.

And in the
networked age, in the digital era, power and value lies in the connections
its exactly the process of thesis, antithesis and synthesis the
search for new and different connections where exponential power and
value can be found.

Lets test this
theory a bit.

In
education the
polarizing debateis about vouchers versus
public schools. Its about teaching to the test versus teaching that nourishes hearts and souls. Its about
squeezing history and music and philosophy out of the curricula in order
to make room for math and science and reading in the quest for test scores
and future funding.

Let me tackle just one dimension of the debate: The private versus public
school debate--free access for all versus
a free-market voucher-driven system. The thesis on the table is: Keep the
system the way it is  a vast system of public schools, some with strong
performance, but many that are able to achieve only the lowest common
denominator. The antithesis: Let competition reign, give all students
vouchers, and let the strongest schools prosperand the weakest ones
perish.

If we could invoke Hegel, hed help us find a synthesis: Perhaps a view
that decisively bolsters the public schools system we have, but at the
same time fosters more innovation and leadership through charter public
schools. And to further fuel innovation, he might suggest a voucher
program for the areas or neighborhoods or student populations most in
need. In this case, the synthesis we hope, would be far more than just a
compromiseit allows us to build on the best of what we have, but
instills new responsibility and accountability to the system as well.

It is in the same way that we might find synthesis of the debate between
the thesis that says the primary purpose of education is to teach the
fundamentals: reading, writing, job skills, technological literacy. And
the antithesis: Schools are about providing food for the soulthe
literature, arts, music, language education that emphasizes seeing
connections and gaining perspective. The fact is: We must have leaders who
are both technically skilled and holistic in their approach, fiercely analytical and
humanistic, smart business people and
passionate advocates of corporate citizenship. Our challenge as
policymakers is to dispel the myth of either/orand find an
elegant way to get to and.

The
same goes, of course, in our own companies as well. In rapidly changing times, the debate is all around holding
onto what is old versus
embracing what is new. In the not-so-recent past, it was about
dot-com up-starts versus
the old guard, the old economy.

In reinventing the 60-year icon called HP, were learning a lot about
the importance of holistic thinking. The thesis being: HP needs to
reinvent itself in a bold way to play in an Internet Age. The antithesis
being: HP, the gray lady of Silicon Valley should remain an immovable icon
like the Statue of Liberty. It becomes the job of leaders within HP not
just the folks with VP in their title, but everyone who believes
they are an advocate of HP to find an intelligent synthesisthe way to
preserve the best, and reinvent the rest. The way to change the
strategy, process, metrics and rewards, and most of all, the culture in
a way thats more than just a combination of old and new. A way to
derive greater value from the whole versus the sum of the parts. It sounds
straightforward, but the challenges are tremendous far-reaching and
inter-connected: They span the largest decisions (what businesses we
should be in, how we manage our supply chain, how were fundamentally
organized, how the critical economics of the business work) down to the
smallest decisions and symbols.

In
the case of globalization, perhaps Hegel also has something to teach us Today,
the issue is framed as if its about globalization versus
greater good. Its about big business versus
local people. One thesis on the table: The developing world must
be held accountable to pay its debts. The anti-thesis on the table:
Debt relief full debt relief is the only hope these countries
have. But the synthesis tells us there may be another path: Any
amount a country is willing to invest in education or
infrastructure or any of the other engines of progress that amount
should be counted as credit against their debts.

And its how Hegel would also have us looked at the debate about
profits versus social
value. The thesis is: Global business is the only means for lifting
the developing world out of poverty. The antithesis:As heard in the voices in Genoa and Seattle and Prague: Put
a stop to globalization as we know it. The synthesis, the one we hope
that were embracing at HP, is to cut a different path to value. We do
not embrace the view that global companies are inherently flawednor the
countervailing argument, that the pursuit of profits justifies the means.

In actions spurred by our world e-inclusion strategy, as just one example,
were building sustainable solutions for developing
countriessolutions that draw on local cultures, local talent, local
resources, local ambitions to build solutions solutions that have a
social cause AND are driven by a profit engine. Its not fundamentally
about giving people PCs or obsessing on the technology our efforts are
focused first on people and solving a very local very personal very
intimate way.

Perhaps
its a bit over-the-top at a dinner like this one to bring such
heady topics to the table. And to bring such heavy topics to the debate
about technology that youll be having at this summit.

But I think the
debate you will have here the hardy often intense sometimes
contentious debate you will have is best framed by these kinds of topics.

Because, in a
true Hegelian sense, we have gathered in this place to in fact get rid of
Ors and find more Ands were here to find a policy for
broadband, and technology, and telecom that is a true synthesis not a
compromise, or a cop out but an enlightened view.

Broadband is
undeniably one thread of continuity that will be woven through education
as the access to learning in the reinvention of business, as the
enabler of new commerce on the global stage as the platform over which
information flows, and knowledge can be shared It is by no means the
only technology force for solving these issues but it is an essential
one.

And so lets
talk about the responsibility each of us bear in coming to this summit
specifically to address the choices we now face in broadband:

Broadband
is still not getting to consumers.Only 9 percent of Americans who
use the net at home have access via broadband. And that is hardly
enough to fulfill the promise of the digital Renaissance weve been
talking about. As policy makers, how can we ensure that broadband becomes
a far-reaching enabler? How can we ensure that we achieve not only
universal accessbut that we achieve it quickly? After all, a recent
report[1]
quoted in the Financial Times
estimates that a rapid completion of the broadband build outpeaking in
2007  would add $400 billion a year to the U.S. economys growth. But
a slower build-out, peaking just four years later, will amount to more
than $500 billion in lost
invention, lost sales, and lost job creation. Thats $500 billion that is simply not
injected into the economy. Time is clearly of the essence

Regulatory
policy takes an adversarial stance:An either/or approachThe debate is dominated by a
thesis and antithesis, without any attempt to reach a synthesis. We are
forced to choose between competition and rollout between regional Baby
Bells and AT&T Our views echo back to 70, or even 90 years ago,
from oil trusts and railroad companies. The design point of policy the
value to optimize the proxies of value placed in the model of the end
state are all designed to prohibit the creation of monopolies and to
protect the consumer. But in a digital economy, that approach is creating
territorial fiefdoms that fundamentally fail to capitalize on the
borderless nature of the Internet. In the process, consumers and their
interests are not being served. Can policymaking create an industry that
is far more effective and simultaneously far less regulated than
railroads and telephone companies have been in the past?

Business
behavior regarding broadband has been narrow, at best Trying
to preserve territorial concessions and fiefs based on copper wire, while
customers are not being served. We know that the issues in getting
carriage across the last mile are significantbut I also know that
a failure to see partnership among competing businesses as an alternative
will, at current course and speed, ultimately eliminate the possibility of
robust long-term gain for all. Can our policy-making be built on the twin
pillars of lively competition AND rapid rollout?

The
governments role, in my view, is not to be an adversary to
businessbut a partner.I
think we have a good model to look to: The build out of the first phase of
the Internet. The Net was born at DARPA as an R&D effort in the
Pentagon then migrated to the halls of academia and finally made
it into the commercial world. What a great example of government
involvement in just the right measure, at exactly the right time. In a
bold experiment to govern a totally new medium, government evolved its
role as regulatorand, instead, adopted its role as advisor and partner.
And, for at least a period of time, resisted the need to set limiting
taxation policies or controls on content.

Can our policymaking for broadband take a similar approach?

I am advocating a collaborative, hands-on role between the technology
industry, the telecommunications industry, the administration, Congress,
and the FCC. Can government streamline and rationalize state and local
licensing and franchising procedures for communications services? Can
government focus on the appropriation of spectrum  and release the
underutilized band in a way that will spur further innovation? Can we deal
with the tougher issues that will protect consumers  rather than
focusing so much energy on preventing monopolies?

So, can we instead focus on issues of privacy and security, both of which
are more meaningful to consumers? Not to mention that if we do not resolve them if we do not build consumer confidence in
the trustworthiness of our systems all of our discussion about
the deployment of broadband becomes a moot point? (At HP, we truly believe
this is a lynchpin of the whole works. We know this from our consumer
business. We know this from our enterprise business which helps other
companies deal with the tough issues. We know this as the operator of a
shopping site thats one of the most successful in our industry. Which
is why were already on the forefront of policy issues around device
technology, information standards, encryption, and so forth. We have
chosen to often live by a higher standardnot abide just by a minimum
standardin the way we treat our employees and our customers precious
information and data. I could go on and on here about the leadership we
are trying to bring to this issue, but youll have a chance later in the
summit to hear from one of my colleagues at HP on this topic.)

Finally,
I would conjecture that businesses in my industry have not done as much as
we are capable.We
need to provide more leadership in identifyingand
expeditingsolutions for broadband deployment. Today, I propose that my
industry take a larger role through an IT coalition. Our objective is to
create an effective coalition of IT companies to promote solutions that
are good for business, good for customers, and good for the rapid rollout
of broadband technology over all.

With
this largeyet by no means comprehensive--list of challenges, what
approach can we take to get to a much more enlightened synthesis? How can
we get to a viable solution?

I
believe we must answer three fundamental questions about the future of
broadband and the role of the telecom industry:

What
is the true desired end point  what is worthy of our ambitions and
our efforts?

What
is the full value to be created? Not just economic value but
social value as well. What is the total equation...the full framework
by which we must measure our efforts and make tradeoffs?

And
how do we make the solution sustainable?

I
think weve made some headway on the first question. What is at stake
here what is worth fighting for here is broadband as a solution
for some much larger problems education reinvention of our
companies global competitiveness (and our ability to unleash the
talents of four billion more people on the planet) rekindling of the
engines of growth in this country. Those are the things that form the end
stateits not fundamentally about the bit and bytes of technology,
but rather, what technology will be able to do for people.

I
think weve touched on some of the foundations of thought for the second
question: We have talked about ensuring that the model of success is based
on the full value not just economic value to companies but
usefulness to consumers. Not just dollars on the bottom line, but social
value imbued in the system. I dont profess that weve found the full
equation by which we should measure our success but I think there is
enough here to start a conversation.

As
for the third question, that is the hardest work of this summit what
do we have as our models?

We have the model
of government temporarily suspending its regulatory role, on content and
taxation, for exampleand becoming a partner and advisor in building the Internet.

In
the creation of the Internet in the first place, we have the model of
competing companies and organizations also partnering, to marshal the huge
resources and skills necessary to roll out the best solution.

Today we look
through our screens into a broadband future that could disperse health,
wealth, and knowledge on significant scaleto literally every
corner of this world. We have the technological means to do it. We have a
population that, once they are educated about its promise and its
likelihood, will demand it. And we have an opportunity to do our best to
include everybody in this global economy not just those who are lucky
enough to live in mature markets.

Will
we let old habits and old lawskeep that screen half-dark?

If
you take one thing away from my remarks this evening I hope its this:
By finding a thesis examining its antithesis we are able to get to
synthesis. In a networked world in an interconnected economy in a
world where technology and people and organizations intersect at odd
angles holistic thinking is I believe, the ultimate path to enlightened
policy.

Id
like to close this evening by bringing us back full circle to the
Renaissance and to a quote from a great Renaissance thinkerLeonardo
DaVinci.

Ogni
impedimento è distrutto dal rigore.

Every
obstacle yields to stern resolve.

In
the face of huge challenges economic historic political
social on this issue of broadband, so much is at stake. Remember what
suspended the first renaissance: Fear of the openness created by the birth
of renaissance thinking. Fear of the huge ethical and moral questions
raised by the times. Leaders were unable to connect the various and
conflicting forces of the times. And it was ultimately Fear that
confounded mankind into a state of inaction back to parochialism.

In
looking fear in the eye, we have two choices:

-To
settle for retreat.

-Or
to use todays the obstacles to motivate our stern resolveand go
forward.